Liz Truss shift

[purpleboy]

inews.co.uk/news/politics/government-no-interest-banning-trans-people-single-sex-toilets-liz-truss-tells-equalities-tsar-1474413

Is this a shift in thinking from Liz Truss?

Third, I think this would mean that it would not be discriminatory for a local authority to grant or to remove funding from women's services on the grounds that these service either do or do not cater for transwomen. So LA policy would be entirely up to the LA on this, and not a legal issue. It becomes a matter for local politics. IANAL, but am I right here?

If an LA defunds a women's service (single sex under the Equality Act) on the basis of it excluding males, but funds a similar women's service that includes TW, is that LA discriminating against women by preventing them access to something that they provide to males? Or would they have to be funding a men's single sex service that excluded females for that to hold?

@JellySaurus

Third, I think this would mean that it would not be discriminatory for a local authority to grant or to remove funding from women's services on the grounds that these service either do or do not cater for transwomen. So LA policy would be entirely up to the LA on this, and not a legal issue. It becomes a matter for local politics. IANAL, but am I right here?

If an LA defunds a women's service (single sex under the Equality Act) on the basis of it excluding males, but funds a similar women's service that includes TW, is that LA discriminating against women by preventing them access to something that they provide to males? Or would they have to be funding a men's single sex service that excluded females for that to hold?

I think that's covered by @justicewomen's post:

A commissioner or service provider who determines a policy which amounts to a mixed sex service could be judged to have indirectly discriminated against even a small group of people if they could show they are particularly disadvantaged (compered to people not of their protected characteristic) because of their protected characteristic (which could be sex, race, religion) and the provider couldn't show it was a proportionate response to a legitimate aim. So a group of Muslim women or those with PTSD now unable to use a women refuse for example. It could also breach the PSED.

It could be indirect discrimination against women who can't use the mixed sex service. But there probably needs to be a court ruling to establish this.

So a group of Muslim women or those with PTSD now unable to use a women refuse for example. It could also breach the PSED.

It could be indirect discrimination against women who can't use the mixed sex service. But there probably needs to be a court ruling to establish this.

So the ground on which this would discriminatory would not be sex. That's problematic for women who are not, say, practicing Muslims, whose only PC is that of sex.

Wow! This makes employment law look simple.

So the ground on which this would discriminatory would not be sex. That's problematic for women who are not, say, practicing Muslims, whose only PC is that of sex.

The discrimination would have to be on the basis of biological sex, as opposed to legal sex. This is the exact example given in the EA2010 explanatory notes as Ereshkigalangcleg has mentioned.

This is where the law doesn't seem clear. It is lawful to exclude TW in these circumstances (as in the example), but it doesn't mention that it could be unlawful not to. At the time the law was written, it was seen as important to ensure that TW could be excluded from women-only spaces and services (if it was seen as necessary for the well-being of women users). Nobody foresaw a time when the inclusion of TW by most service providers would be seen as more important than including all women, so the legislation failed to make provision for this.

I agree OldCrone.

This is where the law doesn't seem clear. It is lawful to exclude TW in these circumstances (as in the example), but it doesn't mention that it could be unlawful not to.

Exactly.

Although gender critical people read Liz Truss's letter as supporting single sex spaces, trans ideologues corks equally well read it as supporting access to opposite sex spaces. Political obfuscatory language.

Autocarrot changed 'could' to 'corks'. I am not calling trans ideologues 'corks' tempting.

@OldCrone

This is where the law doesn't seem clear. It is lawful to exclude TW in these circumstances (as in the example), but it doesn't mention that it could be unlawful not to. At the time the law was written, it was seen as important to ensure that TW could be excluded from women-only spaces and services (if it was seen as necessary for the well-being of women users). Nobody foresaw a time when the inclusion of TW by most service providers would be seen as more important than including all women, so the legislation failed to make provision for this.

THIS! So very many times THIS!

The law was written by sane people in a sane world.

We no longer inhabit that world. The world we currently inhabit decries science and values feelings over all!

See recent court rulings that include gems such as "We really must have a proper defintion of 'sex' before we can rule" and "Sex can be so very many things, from science, biology, gametes to feelings, social mores and whatever any individual can dream up"

Actually no! We really do not. Sex is what it has always been. Deal with it (as They say!)

Stupid and probably naive question. I see people talk about single sex exemptions in relation to quite specific services - things like crisis centres. I've also seen TRAs on twitter refer to "vanishingly rare single sex exemptions." Presumably in those organisations the provider lets
its clients know in some way that some services are single sex, that seems straightforward. Now with more everyday facilities like toilets and changing rooms, how is the provider communicating whether facilities are single sex/single 'gender' etc? Surely the sign on the door is doing that job isn't it? Is that sign making use of the single sex exemptions? And if a 'female' sign isn't telling male people they're not allowed in, what's the point of all the gender neutral toilet signage that is popping up everywhere?

It seems to me that when TRAs say self ID is irrelevant to access spaces what they mean is TW are already 100% entitled to go into any space they want.. and I'm not sure how right or wrong that is.

Is that sign making use of the single sex exemptions?

Yes.

It seems to me that when TRAs say self ID is irrelevant to access spaces what they mean is TW are already 100% entitled to go into any space they want.. and I'm not sure how right or wrong that is.

They've basically decided that they are entitled to, without asking the people who the spaces are for.

Thanks that makes sense.

When you have absolutely no care or conscience for how your behaviour and choices affect and disadvantage others, what can you do? It's proved, all over again, females need strongly gatekept spaces that males cannot enter otherwise the males dominate and own the space and females are barged out as too unimportant to consider. The inequality and sexism is off the scale. This is a group who have proved, they could not find a care for females even if said females are being raped by this policy. It's been a very helpful and enlightening demonstration.

We require law and consequences to stop people breaking and entering because there are those who don't care about other people's interests. We require sex based law for the exact same reasons.

When you are talking to a political position that believes reality is a matter of choice, and that inconvenient facts stop existing if you change the language and scream at anyone who mentions them, it's also rather pointless expecting the conversation to make any sense.

Absolutely Artichoke.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

It seems to me that when TRAs say self ID is irrelevant to access spaces what they mean is TW are already 100% entitled to go into any space they want.. and I'm not sure how right or wrong that is.

They've basically decided that they are entitled to, without asking the people who the spaces are for.

It struck me today that this is very similar to the way Putin has redefined Ukrainians to justify his own invasion. Authoritarianism has its own patterns, which revolve around denying other people the right to define themselves.

That's a very astute observation!

@JustSpeculation

My understanding of what Liz Truss said is that the government does not want to make it illegal across the board for transwomen to use women's facilities and services. In other words, there will be no blanket ban, so if someone wants to offer a service for women which includes transwomen as potential customers, that's just fine. But if someone wants to offer a service which excludes transwomen in a manner consistent with the exceptions in EA2010, that's just fine, too.

So, I have three questions. First, have I understood correctly?

Second, this seems reasonable to me. Do you agree?

Third, I think this would mean that it would not be discriminatory for a local authority to grant or to remove funding from women's services on the grounds that these service either do or do not cater for transwomen. So LA policy would be entirely up to the LA on this, and not a legal issue. It becomes a matter for local politics. IANAL, but am I right here?

For most cases, I'm happy for market forces to decide on single-sex provision. Let people vote with their feet - if you don't want to use mixed-sex facilities then find another provider. If there is a market for single-sex spaces, then someone will open them. Likewise if there is a market for mixed-sex spaces then someone can provide them too. If one theatre has only mixed-sex toilets, then choose a theatre with single sex ones etc.

However there are some cases where an alternative provider is not available. Prisons is the obvious one (you don't get to choose), and so the government should legislate here. Also we have settings such as DV refuges and Rape Crisis centres. Some areas (Edinburgh, Brighton etc.) are without alternative facilities where women can have safe, male-free, spaces. The local authorities need their hands forcing on this.